Advertisements

You can carry on a monopod, or a dipod if you buy an extra ticket.
Tripods go with the luggage.

"[KS]" <> wrote in message
news:016Hc.33297$...
> Hi,
> After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
> baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
> in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
>
> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
> undetected.
>
> Thanks.

Advertisements

"[KS]" <> wrote in message
news:016Hc.33297$...
> Hi,
> After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
> baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
> in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
>
> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
> undetected.
>
> Thanks.

Ask your airline. When I asked they said no. It was checked and it was
opend and inspected.

"[KS]" <> wrote in message news:<016Hc.33297$>...
> Hi,
> After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
> baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
> in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
>
> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
> undetected.
>
> Thanks.

In article <>, (Jim) wrote:
> Ask your airline. When I asked they said no. It was checked and it was
> opend and inspected.
>
> "[KS]" <> wrote in message
> news:<016Hc.33297$>...
> > Hi,
> > After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
> > baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
> > in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
> >
> > Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> > inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
> > undetected.
> >
> > Thanks.

I fly several times a month, mostly on Continental, with a tripod in my
checked case all the time.

No problems other then having had the case opened and inspected a few
times - not necessarily because of the tripod.

On the other hand, in the past, I frequently carried on light stands
and/or tripods -without cases - and put them in the overhead. I seemed
to frequently leave them when in a rush to get to a connecting flight as
they disappear in the overhead.

If someone has access to lost and found at the FAA they might find
several new Bron stands and Foba tripods that I have lost over the years.

I frequently travel with a rollaboard duffle loaded with camera gear
and a Bogen/Manfrotto Carbon Fiber tripod. I've never had a carry-on
question. My home base is O'Hare and the tripod has been to Bangkok,
San Francisco, Portland, and a few others. No guarantees, but I
haven't had a problem myself.

I also put it in checked luggage, but that's not locked now.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Roger

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 02:42:06 -0400, "[KS]" <> wrote:
>Hi,
>After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
>baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
>in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
>
>Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
>inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
>undetected.
>
>Thanks.

[KS] wrote:
> Hi,
> After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
> baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
> in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.
>
> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
> undetected.

Forget taking it on board as carry-on in todays environment.

I've taken my tripod in checked baggage several times. No
problem. For packing I removed the head and stuffed it in a
running shoe, and interspesed socks within the leg area of the pod.

Don't forget what ever tool you might need for reassembly if you
remove the head (eg: a small blade screwdriver for the three
tightening screws on the bottom that many manfrotto heads have.
For a short while you can get away without tightening these, but
they might vibrate loose and get lost, and the head may come
loose (unlikely)).

> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> inflight baggage?

In Canada, and probably elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the airline. It's
dependent on airport security. I've been unable to pass security in Toronto
with a carry-on tripod for the past couple of years. I went so far as to go to
the security gate before checking in and show them the tripod. The answer was
"put it in your checked-in baggage, you can't carry it on".

Tomgo1 wrote:
> Depends on the AIRPORT
> West Palm beach Fla YES
> Fort Lauderdale Fla NO
>
> go figure? of course that was last time who knows for the next trip.
> Tomgo1
>
>

Wow,
With all kind of experiences enlisted here, I think I will keep it in
the checked baggage completely cushioned.

Asking the airline doesn't really help much. It happened to me one time
that the airline said it was OK, but the airport security did allow it.
Luckily, I had a friend drop me off and left the tripod with him to pick
it up next time.

Doug Payne wrote:
>> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
>> inflight baggage?
>
>
> In Canada, and probably elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the
> airline. It's dependent on airport security. I've been unable to pass
> security in Toronto with a carry-on tripod for the past couple of years.
> I went so far as to go to the security gate before checking in and show
> them the tripod. The answer was "put it in your checked-in baggage, you
> can't carry it on".
>
That just confirms it. I do frequent Toronto and Montreal. So checked-in
baggage it is.

In article <dBgHc.46780$>,
"[KS]" <> wrote:
> Doug Payne wrote:
> >> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
> >> inflight baggage?
> >
> >
> > In Canada, and probably elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the
> > airline. It's dependent on airport security. I've been unable to pass
> > security in Toronto with a carry-on tripod for the past couple of years.
> > I went so far as to go to the security gate before checking in and show
> > them the tripod. The answer was "put it in your checked-in baggage, you
> > can't carry it on".
> >
> That just confirms it. I do frequent Toronto and Montreal. So checked-in
> baggage it is.

What I can't figure out is why it's an issue at all??? For "ultra jumbo"
or non-collapsible tripods that can't be secured anywhere in the cabin
without blocking traffic or interfering with operations, it only makes
sense to restrict them to the luggage/cargo hold, but what kind of
security risk does the typical collapsible camera tripod present???

What's next? To board a plane, you have to be naked, shaved bald, and
empty handed?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The terrorists aren't
"winning". Nor are they "on the run". Quite the contrary: They've
already achieved total victory. Idiotic rules banning a camera tripod as
a security risk are all the proof of that statement that's needed.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:48:17 GMT, Don Bruder <> wrote:
>In article <dBgHc.46780$>,
> "[KS]" <> wrote:
>
>> Doug Payne wrote:
>> >> Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
>> >> inflight baggage?
>> >
>> >
>> > In Canada, and probably elsewhere, it has nothing to do with the
>> > airline. It's dependent on airport security. I've been unable to pass
>> > security in Toronto with a carry-on tripod for the past couple of years.
>> > I went so far as to go to the security gate before checking in and show
>> > them the tripod. The answer was "put it in your checked-in baggage, you
>> > can't carry it on".
>> >
>> That just confirms it. I do frequent Toronto and Montreal. So checked-in
>> baggage it is.
>
>What I can't figure out is why it's an issue at all??? For "ultra jumbo"
>or non-collapsible tripods that can't be secured anywhere in the cabin
>without blocking traffic or interfering with operations, it only makes
>sense to restrict them to the luggage/cargo hold, but what kind of
>security risk does the typical collapsible camera tripod present???

None, security risk is not really the issue.

Let me give a slightly different example. There was a free Lyle Lovett
concert on the 4th. It was in battery park and we brought a picnic. We
were not allowed in since we had *forks*. Now remember, this is not an
airplane, where I can dismantle the window with my fork, this is a
bloody city park. Somehow I was a threat with this nasty medium sized
metal fork. So on the 4th of July, to celebrate our freedom and
independence, we sat across the street. Perhaps a threat to passers
by, but the people in the park were safe from our nasty fork. (I won't
even mention my 3" rounded bread knife, your heart may not take the
threat.)

Risk reduction is a goal, but not the major one. Or, rather, the risk
is not hijacking and stuff, the risk is that they will get accused of
doing nothing. A system which was just as effective that did not
discomfort people would be worse. By making our lives difficult they
can claim they are trying hard. And isn't that one of Shrub's claims:
that doing something, even the bloody stupidly wrong thing, is better
than questioning the situation?
>What's next? To board a plane, you have to be naked, shaved bald, and
>empty handed?
>
>I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The terrorists aren't
>"winning". Nor are they "on the run". Quite the contrary: They've
>already achieved total victory. Idiotic rules banning a camera tripod as
>a security risk are all the proof of that statement that's needed.

I had no problem taking a tripod with me in one of my carry on bags in May.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm [KS] <> wrote:
: Hi,
: After the strict rules for not allowing specific things in the inflight
: baggage, I am in double mind to take my Manfrotto tripod in my
: in-flight baggage or store it in my check-in baggage.

: Does anybody know about the airlines rules for taking tripods in the
: inflight baggage? And you know the Manfrotto ones are not small to go
: undetected.

"William Graham" <> wrote in message
news:mJkHc.48289$XM6.48142@attbi_s53...
>
> "Carol" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > You can carry on a monopod, or a dipod if you buy an extra ticket.
> > Tripods go with the luggage.
>
> That's strange. One would think that a monopod could be used as a weapon
> more easily than a tripod....A monopod even looks like a weapon........
>
With a monopod you can only injure one person at a time. With tripod you
can get three at once.

"Mike" <> wrote in message
news:MQkHc.9945$...
>
> "William Graham" <> wrote in message
> news:mJkHc.48289$XM6.48142@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "Carol" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > > You can carry on a monopod, or a dipod if you buy an extra ticket.
> > > Tripods go with the luggage.
> >
> > That's strange. One would think that a monopod could be used as a weapon
> > more easily than a tripod....A monopod even looks like a weapon........
> >
> With a monopod you can only injure one person at a time. With tripod you
> can get three at once.
>
>
Ah.....That must have been their logic..........:^)

In article <y9lHc.32166$JR4.1058@attbi_s54>,
"William Graham" <> wrote:
> "Mike" <> wrote in message
> news:MQkHc.9945$...
> >
> > "William Graham" <> wrote in message
> > news:mJkHc.48289$XM6.48142@attbi_s53...
> > >
> > > "Carol" <> wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > > You can carry on a monopod, or a dipod if you buy an extra ticket.
> > > > Tripods go with the luggage.
> > >
> > > That's strange. One would think that a monopod could be used as a weapon
> > > more easily than a tripod....A monopod even looks like a weapon........
> > >
> > With a monopod you can only injure one person at a time. With tripod you
> > can get three at once.
> >
> >
> Ah.....That must have been their logic..........:^)
>
>

It fits with the logic that any of them are a security risk, anyway!

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!